Why do you characterize voluntarily ending ones own life, in particular for people who are incurably sick as utilitarian?
We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.
For example in Switzerland (we have euthanasia for years), you must be psychologically healthy, and express the wish to die for yourself, and you need a good point. But our health-system/social-system is also ~pretty good (so no need for grandma to lighten the burden on the family). I think it's great and i am pretty proud about this particular point in Switzerland.
> Why do you characterize voluntarily ending ones own life, in particular for people who are incurably sick as utilitarian?
Because most arguments for euthanasia (in this thread and elsewhere) argue for maximizing utility/minimizing suffering.
> We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
Why not turn grandma into soylent? Doesn't cannibalism maximize utility? How can we cremate grandma when people around the world are starving?
What if the reason we don't eat each other is also the reason we shouldn't euthansize people?
> I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.
The post I responded to is saying "let's treat humans more like dogs". So, from my perspective, you aren't quite grasping what this debate is about.
>the post I responded to is saying "let's treat humans more like dogs". So, from my perspective, you aren't quite grasping what this debate is about.
The OP was saying that we give dogs more rights than people, not that dogs are worth less than humans. OP was saying we treat animals more dignified and with more compassion at the end of life than we treat ourselves, which is true ironically enough.
And sorry but what are you on about exactly? What has end of life euthanasia to do with cannibalism? Who is advocating we allow cannibalism or comparing it to euthanasia?
Dogs don't have a right to euthanasia. Dog owners have a right to kill their pets for particular reasons, and livestock owners in general have a right to kill their animals for food and kill 'pests' to protect their livestock.
Most importantly, dogs have no way to deny being euthanized.
In general, humans have more rights given to allow them to stay alive than pets do.
Saying dogs can be killed by their owners so dogs have more rights than people doesn't make sense. If humans had owners, the owners could probably kill them too.
Disclaimer:
In case, it somehow is confused that I'm accused of advocating for slavery, murder, euthanasia, etc. then let it be known that I am not. I think life is an end into itself, and thus ought to be protected.
We're not talking about turning grandma into soylent because the bills are getting too large, we're talking about two things first and foremost. Human dignity, and human autonomy over one's own body.
I can agree that euthanasia available for everyone for some sort of social or cost reason devalues life, but very few people are arguing this and it's not what the debate is about right now.